| Home | << 1 2 3 4 >> |
|
Shettleworth, S. J. (1985). Foraging, memory, and constraints on learning. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 443, 216–226.
|
|
Miller, G. (2006). Animal behavior. Signs of empathy seen in mice. Science, 312(5782), 1860–1861.
|
|
Rendall, D., Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. (2000). Proximate factors mediating “contact” calls in adult female baboons (Papio cynocephalus ursinus) and their infants. J Comp Psychol, 114(1), 36–46.
Abstract: “Contact” calls are widespread in social mammals and birds, but the proximate factors that motivate call production and mediate their contact function remain poorly specified. Field study of chacma baboons (Papio cynocephalus ursinus) revealed that contact barks in adult females were motivated by separation both from the group at large and from their dependent infants. A variety of social and ecological factors affect the probability of separation from either one or both. Results of simultaneous observations and a playback experiment indicate that the contact function of calling between mothers and infants was mediated by occasional maternal retrieval rather than coordinated call exchange. Mothers recognized the contact barks of their own infants and often were strongly motivated to locate them. However, mothers did not produce contact barks in reply unless they themselves were at risk of becoming separated from the group.
|
|
Horowitz, A. C. (2003). Do humans ape? Or do apes human? Imitation and intention in humans (Homo sapiens) and other animals. J Comp Psychol, 117(3), 325–336.
Abstract: A. Whiten, D. M. Custance, J.-C. Gomez, P. Teixidor, and K. A. Bard (1996) tested chimpanzees' (Pan troglodytes) and human children's (Homo sapiens) skills at imitation with a 2-action test on an “artificial fruit.” Chimpanzees imitated to a restricted degree; children were more thoroughly imitative. Such results prompted some to assert that the difference in imitation indicates a difference in the subjects' understanding of the intentions of the demonstrator (M. Tomasello, 1996). In this experiment, 37 adult human subjects were tested with the artificial fruit. Far from being perfect imitators, the adults were less imitative than the children. These results cast doubt on the inference from imitative performance to an ability to understand others' intentions. The results also demonstrate how any test of imitation requires a control group and attention to the level of behavioral analysis.
|
|
Zentall, T. R. (2004). Action imitation in birds. Learn Behav, 32(1), 15–23.
Abstract: Action imitation, once thought to be a behavior almost exclusively limited to humans and the great apes, surprisingly also has been found in a number of bird species. Because imitation has been viewed by some psychologists as a form of intelligent behavior, there has been interest in how it is distributed among animal species. Although the mechanisms responsible for action imitation are not clear, we are now at least beginning to understand the conditions under which it occurs. In this article, I try to identify and differentiate the various forms of socially influenced behavior (species-typical social reactions, social effects on motivation, social effects on perception, socially influenced learning, and action imitation) and explain why it is important to differentiate imitation from other forms of social influence. I also examine some of the variables that appear to be involved in the occurrence of imitation. Finally, I speculate about why a number of bird species, but few mammal species, appear to imitate.
|
|
Søndergaard, E., Jensen, M. B., & Nicol, C. J. (). Motivation for social contact in horses measured by operant conditioning. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., In Press, Corrected Proof.
Abstract: Although horses are social animals they are often housed individually with limited social contact to other horses and this may compromise their welfare. The present study included eight young female horses and investigated the strength of motivation for access to full social contact, head contact and muzzle contact, respectively, to a familiar companion horse. Horses were housed individually next to their companion horse and separations between pens prevented physical contact. During daily test sessions horses were brought to a test area where they could access an arena allowing social contact. Arena access during 3 min was given after completion of a predetermined number of responses on a panel. Fixed ratios (FR) of 8, 16, 24, 32 and 40 responses per arena access were applied in a random order, one per daily test session, within each test week (Monday to Friday), and the number of rewards per daily test session was recorded. All horses could access all three types of social contact in a cross-over design, and an empty arena was used as control. Motivational strength was assessed using elasticity of demand functions, which were estimated based on the number of rewards earned and FR. Elasticities of demand for the three types of social contact were low (-0.20), and not significantly different, although increasing FR still resulted in a decrease in rewards obtained for all three types of social contact (P < 0.001). Across FR-levels horses earned more rewards for social contact than for an empty arena, as shown by much higher intercept values (2.51 vs. 0.99; P < 0.001). However, the elasticity of demand for infrequent access to an empty arena (-0.08) was lower than for social contact (P < 0.01) and not significantly different from zero (P = 0.07). Horses performed more social behaviour the lesser the restriction on social contact (full > head > muzzle). However, the finding that horses showed a similar and high motivation for all three types of social contact suggests that they are valued equally highly in a situation where the alternative is no social contact.
Keywords: Horse; Housing; Social behaviour; Operant conditioning; Motivation
|
|
Søndergaard, E., Jensen, M. B., & Nicol, C. J. (2011). Motivation for social contact in horses measured by operant conditioning. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 132(3-4), 131–137.
Abstract: Although horses are social animals they are often housed individually with limited social contact to other horses and this may compromise their welfare. The present study included eight young female horses and investigated the strength of motivation for access to full social contact, head contact and muzzle contact, respectively, to a familiar companion horse. Horses were housed individually next to their companion horse and separations between pens prevented physical contact. During daily test sessions horses were brought to a test area where they could access an arena allowing social contact. Arena access during 3 min was given after completion of a predetermined number of responses on a panel. Fixed ratios (FR) of 8, 16, 24, 32 and 40 responses per arena access were applied in a random order, one per daily test session, within each test week (Monday to Friday), and the number of rewards per daily test session was recorded. All horses could access all three types of social contact in a cross-over design, and an empty arena was used as control. Motivational strength was assessed using elasticity of demand functions, which were estimated based on the number of rewards earned and FR. Elasticities of demand for the three types of social contact were low (-0.20), and not significantly different, although increasing FR still resulted in a decrease in rewards obtained for all three types of social contact (P < 0.001). Across FR-levels horses earned more rewards for social contact than for an empty arena, as shown by much higher intercept values (2.51 vs. 0.99; P < 0.001). However, the elasticity of demand for infrequent access to an empty arena (-0.08) was lower than for social contact (P < 0.01) and not significantly different from zero (P = 0.07). Horses performed more social behaviour the lesser the restriction on social contact (full > head > muzzle). However, the finding that horses showed a similar and high motivation for all three types of social contact suggests that they are valued equally highly in a situation where the alternative is no social contact.
Keywords: Horse; Housing; Social behaviour; Operant conditioning; Motivation
|
|
Massen, J., Sterck, E., & de Vos, H. (2010). Close social associations in animals and humans: functions and mechanisms of friendship (Vol. 147).
Abstract: Both humans and group-living animals associate and behave affiliatively more with some individuals than others. Human friendship has long been acknowledged, and recently scientists studying animal behaviour have started using the term friendship for close social associates in animals. Yet, while biologists describe friends as social tools to enhance fitness, social scientists describe human friendship as unconditional. We investigate whether these different descriptions reflect true differences in human friendship and animal close social associations or are a by-product of different research approaches: namely social scientists focussing on proximate and biologists on ultimate explanations. We first stress the importance of similar measures to determine close social associations, thereafter examine their ultimate benefits and proximate motivations, and discuss the latest findings on the central-neural regulation of social bonds. We conclude that both human friendship and animal close social associations are ultimately beneficial. On the proximate level, motivations for friendship in humans and for close social associations in animals are not necessarily based on benefits and are often unconditional. Moreover, humans share with many animals a similar physiological basis of sociality. Therefore, biologists and social scientist describe the same phenomenon, and the use of the term friendship for animals seems justified.
|
|
Lingle, S., Rendall, D., Wilson, W. F., DeYoung, R. W., & Pellis, S. M. (2007). Altruism and recognition in the antipredator defence of deer: 2. Why mule deer help nonoffspring fawns. Anim. Behav., 73(5), 907–916.
Abstract: Both white-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus, and mule deer, O. hemionus, females defend fawns against coyotes, Canis latrans, but only mule deer defend nonoffspring conspecific and heterospecific fawns. During a predator attack, females may have to decide whether to defend a fawn while having imperfect information on its identity obtained from hearing a few distress calls. Although imperfect recognition can influence altruistic behaviour, few empirical studies have considered this point when testing functional explanations for altruism. We designed a series of playback experiments with fawn distress calls to test alternative hypotheses (by-product of parental care, kin selection, reciprocal altruism) for the mule deer's defence of nonoffspring, specifically allowing for the possibility that females mistake these fawns for their own. White-tailed deer females approached the speaker only when distress calls of white-tailed deer fawns were played and when their own fawn was hidden, suggesting that fawn defence was strictly a matter of parental care in this species. In contrast, mule deer females responded similarly and strongly, regardless of the caller's identity, the female's reproductive state (mother or nonmother) or the presence of their own offspring. The failure of mule deer females to adjust their responses to these conditions suggests that they do not defend nonoffspring because they mistake them for their own fawns. The lack of behavioural discrimination also suggests that kin selection, reciprocal altruism and defence of the offspring's area are unlikely to explain the mule deer's defence of nonoffspring. We identify causal and functional questions that still need to be addressed to understand why mule deer defend fawns so indiscriminately.
|
|
de Waal, F. B. (1997). Food transfers through mesh in brown capuchins. J Comp Psychol, 111(4), 370–378.
Abstract: Capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) share food even if their partner is behind a mesh restraint. Pairs of adult capuchins were moved into a test chamber in which 1 monkey received cucumber pieces for 20 min and the other received apple slices during the following 20 min. Tolerant transfers of food occurred reciprocally among females: The rate of transfer from Female B to A in the second test phase varied with the rate from Female A to B in the first test phase. Several social mechanisms may explain this reciprocity. Whereas this study does not contradict cognitively complex explanations (e.g., mental record keeping of given and received food), the results are consistent with a rather simple explanation: that food sharing reflects a combination of affiliative tendency and high tolerance. The study suggests that sharing mechanisms may be different for adult male capuchins, with males sharing food more readily and less discriminatingly than females.
|